Conservative Jedi

All ye liberal lies and media bias, come no further.

Monday, May 30, 2011

While I Was Away

It looks like my time away from this blog (I've been paying more attention recently to the sports story about my hometown of Winnipeg getting another NHL team) has resulted in my missing some interesting developments:

Not very surprising given Schultz's mouth, ignorance of history and just plain ol' derangement. NBC has suspended the good Sarge without pay for one week, following a meeting with NBC brass that apparently, was Schultz's recommendation. NBC released this statement.

What have I said about this clown? Did I not tell you he was nuts? Haven't I and others constantly reminded you that he was not fit for the public airwaves? His statement proves he is not an intelligent, relevant host for any type of medium. Am I suggesting "banning him?" or taking him off the air? No. He'll do that himself. Eventually his ratings will dwindle so much to the point that The Mess and the powers-that-be at NBC Universal will finally have no choice but to cancel or fire him based on his not being able to make any money, or for causing further embarrassment for the company. His derangement, based on attempts to garner "shock ratings" or simply his obvious chemical imbalance, are not the things journalists; or money are made of.

Like the artcile says, you're damned if you do, you're damed if you don't. Forget the fact that President Barack Obama got 80% if the white vote to launch him into the White House in 2009 and that Republicans are hedging their future bets on at least two black Consevatives, Herman Cain and Col. Allan West. Are they legitimate contenders for any sort of Republican leadership? Of course they are and they're potentially good ones too. That's why the left has decended on them and their supporters with such vigor of hatred and lies that I wonder how (given the use of the race card at every given opportunity) the public hasn't tarred and feathered these people for their decades-long lies of black conservatives.By the way, did you notice that the left has brought up the race factor yet again? They're pretty stuck in this gear aren't they?

The new DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz apparently, like all good, "educated" liberal Democrats, thinks that the law shouldn't be the law. Nevermind the Constitution, nevermind the actual laws concerning immigration. Wasserman-Schultz, again like all liberals, just can't seem to stomach the thought of all those immigrants rushing the border from Mexico aren't beng given the royal, red-carpet treatment so that they can be misled with nanny-state entitlements so that they'll be insured to vote Democrat. It really says something when you control the White House and Senate, yet stil have to go to outside help for more votes. How scared are they exactly?One of my personal favourites from the last week...The Meaning of Free Speech for Liberal University StudentsIt seems that all liberal brains do work the same after all. After having their heads being filled with lies and misinformation about conservatives throughout their whole academic careers, it's no wonder that many students who consider themselves left-of-center really don't mind banning conservative news sires and blogs. When you've been inundated with left-wing hatred and intolerance (all under the guise of tolerance) all of your young life, it isn't really surprising to hear their thoughts on how, if your a far-left liberal free speech is for me, but not for thee.

And that's defend anyone about anything that has a (D) after their name. Conversely, anyone with a (R) after their name is guilty of everything. Especially things that are made up. Just ask Lawrence O'Donnell. He recently defended Congressman Anthony Weiner's sex scandal with:

"Republicans have a much tougher time surviving so-called sex scandals because they spend so much time preaching against the kind of behavior they then get caught doing themselves. Anthony Weiner can easily be re-elected in his district no matter what he tweets, and nothing has developed in this story so far that would prevent him from being elected mayor of New York, a job for which he is more than qualified and well-suited..."Voters need to realize that sex doesn't matter when it comes to casting their votes."

This after normally Democrat-friendly CNN attempted to ask Weiner about the Tweets that he allegedly sent to a female college student andWeiner not only dodged the questions, but got a tad bit insulting to

CNN is not normally considered a network hostile to liberal Democrats, but Rep. Weiner was quite defensive Tuesday afternoon when CNN pressed him about the lewd picture sent to a female college student from his Twitter account. "When asked why he was not asking Capitol Police to investigate if someone hacked his Twitter account, Weiner launched into his talking points – that the matter was a distraction and he would not spend time talking about it. When CNN continued to ask him if the lewd picture was his and if he sent it, a flustered Weiner dodged questions and called the producer on the set a 'jackass.'"

Seeing that O'Donnell is a self-admitted Socialist and by extension has absolutely no clue about what's good for the economy, I wouldn't take this clown to seriously. That and, well after all, he does work for MSNBC. I mean, really, what more reason do you need to turn the channel? On top of that, as the NewsBusters article pointed out O'Donnell's beliefs when it comes to a politicians personal decency or character:

-Promiscuity and infidelity are nothing to be concerned with when judging the character of a person being bestowed a position of tremendous power.-Family values isn't something you can actually vote for.-A 46-year-old man married for less than a year sending lewd pictures to a 21-year-old college student (assuming that's what Weiner did) is by no means an indication of his character or how he might use his position of power as an elected official.

Taliban Leader Omar Killed in Pakistan?

Gallup: 61 Percent Say All or Most Abortions Should Be Illegal

Liberals love polls. Whenever they have some insane point to push (even though, per usual most of the country adamantly disagrees with them, they use polls with loaded, fixed and misleading questions-usually with only one resulting answer-they invariably trot out their "most Americans think" polls that are, as pointed out, not all that accurate.

Given that, will the left proudly relay the results of this Gallop poll (that they usually trust so much) that says sixty-one percent of Americans (including self-described "pro-choice" advocates) believe most or all abortions should be illegal?

Those Conservatives Are So Darn Evil

Are you tired of it yet? Are you just plain ol' sick and tired of the left and their media allies just nonchalantly labeling conservatives as hating on everything...from the beginning of time?Why is it that the left continually gets away with spreading the same old falsehoods and lies about the right hating children, seniors, women, immigrants, gays, Muslims, Hispanics? Not to mention the Earth, the environment and puppies.

Almost every prominent lefty-especially politicians of the left, like Howard Dean (who's always off the rails these days, it seems), Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, John Kerry-go on their favourite left-wing talk shows like Hardball, The Ed Show, The View and other hate-fest sewing circle "discussion" shows and say whatever outrageous and spiteful things about the right and conservative politicians and organizations usually without any sort of rebuttal from any right-leaning guests. That's probably because these left-wing hosts are too cowardly to have conservative guests on to defend their points and views. Just look at Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell (while constantly defending Obama no matter what and cowardly lying about Ronald Reagan) Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Tavis Smiley, Joy Behar, The View (which has conservative guests, yet are always out-numbered three or four to one, not including token conservative Elizabeth Hasselbeck)

Don't you just love how conservatives such as Sarah Palin are the "divisive" ones? How everything they say is "controversial" and the left is always "mainstream," despite the fact that a heavy majority of the U.S. and Canadian population identify themselves as conservative? How else do you explain the historical majority of conservative leadership in the United States and Canada? Not to mention England, Germany and Australia.

You have to wonder why these shows don't have on a George Will, Charles Krauthammer or Thomas Sowell? Other than Will on Meet the Press, and Ann Coulter on Hardball or Behar's show, why is the left so afraid to learn a few things about history, the economy and how they're wrong on just about every matter that confronts them? I mean they're just going to twist what their guests say anyway to lie to their tiny little audiences anyway (usually when the segment is over and their guests aren't there to straighten them out once more) And even then they try to persuade their audiences with "conservatives" and RHINOS like David Frum, Kathleen Parker and David Brooks.

It's rampant. It's pathetic and in the long run, it doesn't work. Ratings for these lefty programs continue to decline at astronomical rates and subscriptions for the print version of their conservative hate-fests like the New York Times (who now claim, according to columnist Charles Blow that conservatives are "callous" and with an "unshakeable immunity to empathy") , Newsweek, Time, Los Angeles Times, etc. are in free-fall. People aren't buying it anymore lefties! Try some truth in your arguments and maybe, just maybe one of them will resonate with even some on the right some day.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Appeaser-In-Chief at It Again

President Barack Obama sure wants to have legacy doesn't he? One that doesn't matter how he gets it, good or bad. If you think his appeasement by bowing to other world leaders was sickening, wait until you get a load of this: Obama now wants to appease the "Palestinians" by urging Israel to move it's borders back to the 1967-era. So, Israel, a population of people that settled that "disputed" territory back before the birth of Jesus, defended it against an unprovoked attack from the Arab world and took more land as a consequence (i.e. fair punishment) of the Arab armies actions in '67, are pelted with missiles on almost a daily basis, have "Palestinian" assassins murder whole families in the middle of the night and not lastly, the charter of these enemies of Israel state that they are committed to the destruction of Israel itself. It is their mission. Their life-long mission. They will sacrifice their own children for it.

So the President of the United States of course comes along, still thinking he's on the cover of every magazine with a halo over his head, still thinking everyone is enthralled and in love with him and his rhetoric and urges Israel to move it's borders back. So, in essence, terrorism and the murder of infants gets you what you want eventually...almost. fortunately, Obama didn't really realize that he's playing with Benjamin Netanyahu, a stalwart veteran of Israeli defense. You know, the guy many consider to be a hero to Israelis that the president has tried to delegitimatize and embarrass.

I wonder if Obama even considered asking the "Palestinians" to just be happy with what they have, that rightfully and lawfully, they're lucky to have. I mean why doesn't the Arab world cut a piece out of one of their own territories and give it to the "Palestinians?"

This guy is such a marshmallow, bin Laden not withstanding, which he had help with of course, but you already know that don't you?

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

al Qaeda Chooses New Leader

Stimulus Killed One Million Jobs

As much as President Obama and the Democrats would want you to believe that they created jobs with the now infamous "stimulus," an extensive new study out of the University of Western Ontario, Canada Economics Department and Ohio State University Economics Department, shows the trillion dollar boondoggle known as the stimulus bill, which President Obama has credited over and over again for "saving and/or creating" thousands of jobs, actually killed onemillion private sector jobs.

Are Dems Finally Seeing the Failure that is Jimmy Carter

It's not like they have to be drawn a map of his failures both as president and as a "private citizen." But what is it about the worst president in history that makes the likes of Katie Couric and the rest of the liberal media swoon with delight just to be in his presence? Do they know who they are talking too? Do they know his pathetic stint as president? Of course they do. They just want the rest of us to think he is a MVP in world political history. Oh, his legacy is cemented in world history all right, just not the way the hoped or the way they have ridiculously spun his tenure in the White House.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Four Dems Refuse to Honor Intelligence Community who Found bin Laden

For all the hoopla on the left about the "great," "gutsy," "admirable," "thought-out," call from President Barack Obama to have a U.S. Navy SEAL team kill the most wanted man on Earth, nobody wants to give credit (officially) to the men who shall remain nameless that actually pulled the trigger or the men and women responsible for the years of dedication (and ridicule) it took to find him. That's what this story says about the great thanks and respect four Democrats have for America's armed forces. Remember these anti-Americans: Reps. Dennis Kucinich (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), Pete Stark (CA) and Lynn Woolsey (CA).

CNN's Double Standard

As this story states, back in 2002, FOX News Chairman Roger Ailes sent a memo to then President George W. Bush regarding his post-9/11 actions and "CNN anchors threw a fit." Well, now that one of their own occupies the White House, CNN (and of course the rest of the liberal media) see absolutely nothing wrong with a journalist (along with what seems like half of the liberal media establishment actually employed by the Obama administration) giving the president advice on anything.

Not to mention that CNN "a network run until two years ago by Rick Kaplan, who while serving as President of CNN from 1997 through 2000, played golf with President Clinton, and "while an ABC News executive, advised presidential candidate Clinton on how to handle the Gennifer Flowers situation and blocked anti-Clinton stories from getting onto World News Tonight."

Ah, but that doesn't mean anything. It's only when someone from FOX News has something to say or has a conversation with the president is it time to get out the torches and pitchforks.

The information about this Ailes/Bush memo was actually from Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War. The memo to Karl Rove from Ailes went to Bush as a "concerned American expressing my outrage about the attacks on our country. I did not give up my American citizenship to take this job.""Bob Woodward's characterization of my memo is incorrect. In the days following 9/11, our country came together in nonpartisan support of the president. During that time, I wrote a personal note to a White House staff member..."Of course, CNN's Arthel Neville, host of Talkback Live, tried to distort and spin the close association between Clinton and Kaplan,"There's a difference in seeking access to the administration, as opposed to giving unsolicited political advice."So Kaplan spending one-on-one time with President Clinton and was awarded the privilege of two overnight stays. Ailes sent a memo to an aide. So are we to believe CNN wouldn’t have mentioned Ailes if Woodward had revealed that Ailes stayed overnight at the White House a few months earlier?

Canadian Sportscaster Fired for Expressing Opinion

I guess Rogers didn't want the backlash or bad press of one of their employees publicly expressing his own beliefs. Ah, the tolerance of those who liken Christians to Nazis and really enjoy having children be forced to learn, and be positive of, no matter their true beliefs-of their life-style and watch annual parades of half-naked men and woman on floats making out with each other. I guess after 20 plus years of debauchery, they feel people don't think they're "proud" enough yet to just simply be.

Of course, he's just a sell-out and doesn't really care about the planet. He probably denies the Holocaust too. He's not a real scientist. So no matter what his experience, knowledge or attempts to find the truth and relate it to the mass public, he will be shunned by the liars and scammers.

The paranoids and money-grabbers of government grants, now they're the real perveyors of science, justice and heroism. Yeah, right.

Why That Dirty Little Terrorist

Apparently the thought of 72 virgins in the afterlife must not have been all that exciting for Osama bin Laden. Maybe he wanted some experience instead.This is some funny stuff. I jokingly thought to myself when the news broke of the SEALS grabbing a plethora of disks, hard-drives and other highly-touted information from bin Laden's compound, I wonder if they'll find any porn? I never thought they actually thought they would ever find some.I wonder how this will affect his "martyrdom?" Other than not believing it is not true and it's just CIA propaganda (which it just yet may be) how will this affect his followers belief system of him? Will all his strict obedience talk in the "ways of Islam" affect his image now that, allegedly, he's a pervert?

Like I said, he's a constitutionalist. It's just that I don't seem to recall the U.S. Constitution striking down anything about the doing in of the world's most wanted, vile, piece of dung. I doubt anyone, not even the harshest of President Obama's critics, would consider anything but the removal of bin Laden from this Earth a good thing.

Have You Heard?

Apparently, NBC's David Gregory has accused Newt Gingrich of being racist!Yeah, it seems the MSM/DNC are trying a brand new tactic to embarrass and potentially derail any presidential aspirations that Gingrich may have. I guess come November of 2012, he'll try to become the "Gingrich Who Stole Christmas," again. Or would that be the "Gingrich Who Stole the Winter Solstice?" Since this plan is a stroke of genious and has never been tried before, I guess the Republicans should just fold up their tiny racists tents, huh? No matter what Obama does, nobody, I mean nobody can criticize anything he does. Why? Because you'd be a racist, what else?I guess the president residing over a country that has 47 million citizens on food stamps is totally immune to criticism because he's black. Or rather half-black, as the MSM wants you to forget that his mother was white, so their fail-safe accusations of phony racism charges can carry on unimpeded. Except, they are the ones who keep bringing up the ethnicity of the president. When was the last time a Republican even acknowledged the president's skin color? Who is it that keeps bringing it up at every conversation about the man? The left. Every single time he is mentioned, they bring up how it's the Republicans are obsessed with Obama's skin color, it's the left who "forget he was black." It's the left who said Obama was the first "African-American who is smart, articulate, clean..." And it's the left who is always fixated on the president's "accomplishments" as the first black president.By the way, wasn't it (and hasn't it always been) racist for the MSM to call one of their heroes, Bill Clinton the "first black president?" Apparently not. It would be if he had been a Republican.

Are there people that still seriously buy into this crap? Of course. But, they're all on the left, and the ones especially posing as "journalists," such (as always, Chris Matthews, especially when if someone decides to defend Gingrich, Matthews will have none of it. href="http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/05/15/soros-funded-group-falsely-accuses-ron-paul-comparing-social-security"He also tried recently to smear Ron Paul about something Matthews and his MSNBC brethern know absolutely nothing about...history and the Constitution; Rachel Maddow and the disgraced Kieth Olbermann) Nevermind Thomas Sowell, Stanley Crouch, Allan West, Herman Cain-whom the highly ignorant and irrelevant

Is that hysterical or what? Ms. Maddow conveniently omitted (not forgotten, but omitted) that her own network only has Democrat politicians and liberal pundits on any and every Mess show about 95% of the time. She doesn't want to inform her tiny audience that there is always two or three liberals on these shows on her network that just wholly agree with each other, even if (or especially if) they're just spewing out hyperbole and left-wing talking points and straw man arguments. There are no Republicans or conservatives there to debate or debunk their insane and untrue accusations and re-writing of history. Why? Well, other than that's what the left does and has been for over 35 years, but moreover, they'd get killed and embarrassed. Why do you think Lawrence O'Donnell or Ed Schultz never have on the likes of George Will, Charles Krauthammer or Thomas Sowell? I mean other than Sowell totally destroying their "the right has no black representation and are racists" narrative and making someone like O'Donnell cry with frustration.But with Maddow's crying foul aside, she also failed to tell you that even though the iberal guests were "outnumbered," they still recieved more face-time than the guest from the right.

So, with all this, for an Obama butt-kisser like Maddow to claim anyone of being biased is surely more richer than George Soros.

Another MSNBC Host Shows Why They Are Last in the Ratings

Among news and current affairs shows, MSNBC is more in the vein of The View than CNN. Hyperbole, assumption, vindictiveness, bias hatred and amateur "research" make up what is today's lefty "news" outlets.

After trying to use some poorly executed and obvious guilt by association on Andrew Breitbart in an attempt to paint him as a racist (surprise!) Mess host, Martin Bashir actually asked former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo if he would have preferred President Obama's death over Osama bin Laden's. Seriously. He actually asked that question to an American politician.

Amazing. Feeling nauseous? Need to vomit to feel better and get some well-needed sleep? Forget about Ipecac, just watch some of this network. You'll be mopping it up in buckets. Have you ever seen Monty Python's Meaning of Life? Then you'll know what I mean.

To my point of why or what former president George W. Bush meant when he said, "...you know, I don’t know where he is. I -- I repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."I've said in previous arguments that Bush said what he said about "not being all that concerned" about Osama bin Laden simply meant that he knew bin Laden was on the run, he has faith in the U.S. military and knew bin Laden would eventually be caught or captured. If anyone in their right mind thinks Bush simply gave up on finding or killing bin Laden is either a liar or a fool. Seriously.

So of course, the dishonest "journalists" at A Mess NBC trotted out their highly edited hit piece on Bush for the umpteenth time to further show (I guess) that-somehow-Barack Obama is more of a hunter/killer than Bush was. In fact, the way the left is carrying on, you would think Obama is more of some kind of super assassin along the lines of The Terminator. Maybe retired Colonel, Dale Dye can step down and President Obama can step in and "train" all these wanna-be celebrities about boot camp when they are getting ready to make a war film.

Here's what Chris Matthews did to Bush exactly what they claim Andrew Brietbart does to the left, use highly edited video and obscurred context to lie about their re-written history:

Compare this to the actual quote that came in a form of an almost four-minute answer.

Also, can you can tell the American people if you have any more information -- if you know if he is dead or alive. Deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really want to make...

BUSH: Well, deep in my heart, I know the man's on the run if he's alive at all. And I -- you know, who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not? We hadn't heard from him in a long time.

And the idea of focusing on one person is really -- indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who has now been marginalized. His network is -- his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.

He is -- you know, as I mention in my speeches -- I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death. And he, himself, tries to hide, if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong, that when we find enemy bunched up, like we did in Shah-e-Kot mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shah-e-Kot. And I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shah-e-kot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly; we're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped, we have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

QUESTION: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?

BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.But, you know, once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins.

He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it -- either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things that's part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary or training or a place to hide or a place to raise money. And we got more work to do.

See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand -- that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that. I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective.

And I can assure you I am not going to blink, and I'm not going to get tired, because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

That last paragraph kind of shoots that "Bush doesn't care about bin Laden" crap all to hell now doesn't it? Bush didn't care about bin Laden at all. Nope, not at all. He cared so little in fact, that he risked his reputation, America's reputation and his presidential legacy acquiring information from Gitmo detainees just so Obama can find bin Laden, kill him and take all the credit. Yep. That's what he had planned.

Of course, this shouldn't be anything new to the left. Remember Hurricane Katrina? George Bush doesn't care about black people either.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

U.S. had Agreement with Pakistani Government Since 2001 that Bin Laden Could be Gotten in Pakistan?

Did the the Bush administration have an agreement (however secret or short-lived) with then Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf to capture or kill Osama bin Laden when he escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001? There was according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials. If there was, I would think Bush would get even more credit than he is getting from the MSM that he rightfully deserves if he and Musharraf actually made this agreement 10 years ago. Although I give a small tip of the hat to Obama (for following a plan and information gathered under the Bush administration-interesting isn't it, lefty media?) this would mean-if true, that maybe Bush deserves more than Obama for "thinking ahead." You know that thing the hateful, spiteful, biased liberal media accused Bush of never having to be in danger of doing (or able to do-disgusting and pathetic for so-called "truth-telling information gatherers)

So, if this is true, what say you disgusting bias, lying media? Moreover, what will President Obama and the rest of the DNC say? Nothing of course. It would sort of diminish the "bump" Obama is recieving now wouldn't it?

What's the Difference?

Oh right. One was done by a democrat president. And I guess, the dead one can't complain about how his feelings were hurt, while the others are...still alive and sucking tax-money out of the Americans.

For the record, I don't see what the big hubbub is about. I liked both results. But as usual, the Obamedia has to make a case for their guy, even though without the last president, their guy wouldn't have gotten even close to the dead one without the former president's help. And that's not even mentioning other plots that were stopped and lives that were saved because of the "techniques" that were used at Gitmo. But of course, that didn't even happen in the white-washed, false history of the left; other than to lie about results and to blame the president that got you your results and the most wanted man on the planet.

How Many Lies Would A Liar Lie if A Liar Did Tell Lies

Just ask the New York Times resident Pulitzer Prize-winning, flip-flopping moron, Paul Krugman. Nothing new with Krugman today. He's still whitewashing history for his liberal brethren so the true architects of the financial crisis (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and even a little contribution-in the form of linguistic approval of their deeds-then Senator, Barack Obama) would be able to get off Scot-free, retire with a Congressional pension and sleep well (how Frank could sleep with a brothel going on around him is anybody's guess) and the others could retire with one having economic blood on his hands, while the other became president of the United States on the backs of the misinformative media.

Rice Exposes O'Donnell as the Ignoramus that He Is

When will these amateurs posing as "journalists" stop thinking they're more informed or smarter than the people that were actually involved with the decision-making and that actually were there. This also goes for FOX News anchors. Sean Hannity, I'm talking to you.

I love it when a loony lib (especially a Messer) gets smacked down. They never learn do they? Especially putting a Phd (that actually had first-hand information and access) against a MSNBC socialist moonbat.

You'll clearly notice that at the end of the interview, O'Donnell had to have his big brother, Rachel come on and make him feel better about his ignorance and ineptitude. This is what passes for journalism on the left, folks. Get punked, have someone bring you a cookie and pat you on the head. "It's o.k, Lawrence. It's o.k."

al Qeada Confirms bin Ladens Death

I guess this should do away with any "he's not really dead" conspiracy theories...unless you're one of those Truther loons who believe it's all a lie and al Qeada (aka "U.S. government employees") are just playing their part.

The Perfect Purple Moment, Bush Should Share in the Credit of Killing bin Laden

I've already tried to explain (like I should have to do so to anyone intellectually honest enough) about how former president, George W. Bush started the hunt for Osama bin Laden after picking up on any bread crumbs that Bill Clinton's administration left behind concerning al Qaeda and the whereabouts of bin Laden himself.

People are starting to get it, from Nancy Pelosi (unbelievably) thanking Bush for his leadership and his part in the hunt for the terrorist leader, to even MSNBC's Chris Matthews surprising realization that the U.S. SEALS team finding and killing bin Laden under the orders of President Obama was due in big part to Bush, to former Clinton White House Counsel, Lanny Davis, who says that although "some evening TV commentators could not resist the temptation to refer snidely to comments made by then-President George W. Bush, including running TV clips of Bush apparently diminishing the importance of killing bin Laden, saying his death should not be the measurement of America’s success or failure in its war against terror. But this ignores the fact that his comment reflected a general-consensus strategy recommended by both the intelligence community and the Defense Department, i.e., that al Qaeda should not be allowed to declare victory because bin Laden had not yet been caught and/or killed."

"It also ignores that the successful operation completed courageously by President Obama was begun during the Bush years, such as determining the location of the courier that led to finding the bin Laden compound in Abbottabad. Moreover, a fair reading of Bush’s record should grant him some credit for the Terrorist Surveillance Program and “enhanced interrogation techniques.” I was one of many liberal Democratic critics who questioned the legal and constitutional bases of these programs. At the very least, we critics of these programs should now give Bush some credit, since according to reports from the senior administration officials, these controversial tactics contributed significantly to catching bin Laden.

My question is, since all of these liberals see the truth (finally) when will this be the norm when people discuss who's responsible for the silencing of the most evil man since Hitler to have walked the planet? The MSM needs to grow up and do their job.This all leads to ...The Vindication of George W. Bush

Is This an Accurate Comparison?

Do you happen to notice these little revelations?"[Obama] ordered the military raid that ended with Osama bin Laden’s violent death — an action made possible by intelligence developed from harsh interrogation sessions under the Bush administration."

“The irony is Obama is benefiting from policies he criticized. If the Obama administration had been designing from the beginning the counter-terror policy based on what he was saying on the campaign trail, we would not have had the ability to get Osama bin Laden.”

“I think also there’s a recognition by President Obama that just maybe the decisions made by his predecessor . . . were not that bad after all.”

Holder Unsure if Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Led to bin Laden's Death

This guy is the biggest joke and liar that the U.S. Attorney Generals Office ever had the displeasure of heading their department. It's not enough he thinks America is full of cowards, or that his racist tendencies protect Black Panther members from intimidation cases and that black on white crime is no big deal (if even a reality to him.)

Yep. Obama, just magically discovered the location of bin Laden and said "Kill that." No help from the CIA based on months and years of evidence and testimony. No help from the Bush administration (and even Clinton for that matter) Holder just thinks Obama had some genie that let him know where bin Laden was. How opaquely pathetic.

However, one question comes to mind...Why was the U.S. Attorney General answering questions about an incident that happened 2000 miles away from American soil?

Yeah, I know. The "man" who killed thousands of innocent men, women and children, be them American, Canadian, African, Japanese, Sudanese what have you, be them Christian or Muslim, these absolute loons want to know if the Americans acted lawfully? Who cares? I hope he suffered! I hope they mutilated his body! I wish they had thrown his body to pigs and gleefully watched them consume him! Lawfully? Are you freaking kidding me? What an idiot!!

bin Laden Wouldn't Have Been Found if Not for Bush

Like it or not. believe it or not, if it weren't for President Bush's tireless efforts (and no when he said "I'm not worried about Osama," anybody with half a brain knows he meant he knew he would be caught eventually, so he didn't 'worry' about it) Osama bin Laden most likely wouldn't have been caught and or killed; at least not when he was. You don't have to do much research to know Bush and his administration, along with the CIA (you know the bunch of bunglers that "lied" to the world concerning WMDs but now are brilliant because they helped Obama look like a god again) had spent seven years combing through evidence and detainee testimony (yes, the poor souls who want to kill your children and detroy your way of life) through waterboarding. Yes, waterboarding. So much for the myth that it doesn't work and we'll get no information out of them that way!

So Bush runs about 95 yards and Obama gets full credit for the touchdown. Fine, maybe a new quarterback with a different gameplan was needed (or would that be coach?) but anyone that doesn't see that the killing of bin Laden doesn't have Bush's fingerprints at least somewhat in this is a liar and/or a complete imbecile. Jeez, even Joy Behar said Bush deserves some credit and she is nuts! Is anyone out there honest enough to say Obama deserves the credit for getting the SOB, but not total credit?

By the way, do ya think if bin Laden did in fact land his 72 virgins, that God played the ultimate "PUNK'D " on him, such as...

The Typical Hypocrisy of Democrat Leadership.

Nancy Pelosi (you know, the former Speaker of the House) sure changed her mind pretty quick about the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. Check out what she said on September 7, 2006 when George W. Bush was president:

"[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done … is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer."

Here she is Monday, May 2, while Barack Obama is president:

"The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. … I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. … [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic."

Big difference, huh? I guess now that bin Laden is dead and Obama is the president, it's probably not too late and America is much safer now. I wonder what made her change her little mind?

Almost 10 years to the day, I'm still having arguments with people that maintain, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, that Bush brought down the World Trade Centers and Tower #7. A recent debate had me arguing against another bloke who thinks the driver shot JFK! A little too much Alex Jones and/or Jesse Ventura me thinks.

It's Started

We all knew this was coming. Too bad, so sad. He's dead. It's funny how he talks tough when he saw what happened to Osama. Maybe this loser will be taken out too. If they don't get it now, they never will. Freedom and liberty has won out again. It always has, it always will. bin Laden failed...miserably. With the uprising in the Middle East and the demand for freedom, if not democracy itself, it is clear that his message of a world caliphate and the dominance of Sharia Law the world over was ignored and as long as freedom-lovers stay true and as long as there are men that make up these special forces as well as men like Bush and Obama that will take it to them right where they live (literally) these maniacs who clearly do not represent any type of true Muslim will never see their twisted, evil dreams come to fruition.

By the way, did you catch what this psycho said? "We are a nation of billions, a good nation. We'll teach you about politics and military ways very soon, with god's help."Yeah, those 7th Century catapults and archers will do some real damage, huh? And maybe he doesn't know it by now, but God doesn't seem to be on their side.

Bush Declines Obama Invitation to Ground Zero Event

It's Obama's moment and I think Bush knows it. It was humble and and gracious of President Obama to invite Bush. But as this article says via NewsBusters, I think Obama will use it as a political moment (admittely he would probably crazy not to) instead of a time of closure for a lot of Americans. I think Bush knows this and dosen't want to be used as a propaganda tool. But mostly, again I agree with the article, that "Bush doesn’t want to encroach on the singular role that Obama, as president, should rightly have in leading the ceremonies marking Bin Laden’s demise."

Although Obama apparently made all the right calls, including the use of special forces and not just bombing the compound that would have likely resulted in unneccesary civilian deaths (that were probaly bin Laden associates anyway) or that he was the one who decided, "We got him" when all the rest were waiting for further identification confirmation, he also waited 16 hours to give the green light on the operation. So you would think that followers of President Obama would be a little more gracious and see the similarities, especially when, much like Bill Clinton in 1998, had earlier chances at bin Laden but decided to wait and in the end didn't get him and facilitated the path to 9/11.

In the process of the Conservative Party winning it's first majority since Brian Mulroney took the Progressive Conservatives to that height in 1984 and 1988, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff lost his seat in Ebitoke-Lakeshore, Ontario, although he has stated he will not resign as party leader. The separatist Bloq Quebecois for their part were so thoroughly destroyed that leader Gilles Duceppe resigned and the Bloq has lost their party status. So much for succession.

Somehow though, through the remnants of the Bloq or any succeeding party of their ilk, rest assured they will continue to try convince the people of Quebec that separation from the dominion (which they never did officially sign on to) is still in their best interest. Seeing how they failed huge not only in this election, but in past referendums on the matter, you would think they would give up on their deluded "dream."

But now, finally, with a Conservative majority, things will get done. The Liberals can whine all they want. And as for the new Official Opposition, the NDP and Jack Layton? In four years, Layton's wave of sudden, although not totally unexpected popularity, will naturally decline under the weight of incompetence. The Dippers better enjoy their official opposition status, because after four years and 60 seat losses later, the country will see Layton as he really is; not even close to being worthy leader.

As for how Harper got a majority after his party was charged with contempt of Parliament? Was it the fact that the other three major parties had formed a coalition to bring down the Conservatives, thus negating the will of the Canadian electorate? Was it the fact that Layton is a Socialist or that all that Duceppe wanted was to be Prime Minister of Quebec? Was it that Michael Ignatieff was more American than Canadian? Or was it the simple fact that Canadians were tired of having elections almost every year? This was number three in the last five years.May Who?

Apparently an American counterpart thinks the results are beneficial to both free-market societies north and south of the U.S./Canadian border.

By the way, there was another person that normally would be shredding the actions of the president on almost any other day. This person is hated by the left and they think not one word of praise can escape his lips when it comes to any Democrat, much less a Democrat president. But that was proved wrong when conservative radio-host Rush Limbaugh lavished well-deserved praise on President Obama after the news of Osama bin Ladens long-awaited capture or death.Surprised? Don't be. Like myself, I think any conservative, be it a independent or Republican will give credit where credit is due. Especially when the praise or credit is undeniable. When was the last time anybody on the left that hosts a television or radio show give any credit to George W. Bush for anything while in the White House or after his presidency was done? Other than a brief tip of the hat from of all people, Chris Matthews, who on the left swallowed their pride to simply tell it like it was?

What Did Pakistan Know?

Obviously they knew something, probably everything concerning the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and said nothing. Odd, yet not surprising, coming from a supposed "ally"of the West on the War on Terror.

So, what did Pakistan know about the location of bin Laden, considering that he was in the heart of Pakistan for months if not years? Someone will really have to think everyone else are total sheep if they think anyone will believe that the Pakistan government didn't know that the world's most notorious terrorist was hiding in a mansion in the heart of one of their major cities.

Typically MSNBC Hosts Deny Bush Any Credit Whatsoever

This was to be expected. Hosts at The Mess NBC are on a Obama-loving tangent about the recent elimination of Osama bin Laden from this Earth, and rightfully so. However as is the usual flare for the unbelievably bias liberal network, hosts are giving the man who put all the pieces in place for a eventual successful capture or death of the al Qeada leader no credit at all. Even President Obama acknowledged President Bush's involvement in the killing of bin Laden, but not the likes of Lawrence O'Donnell, the perennially ignorant, uninformed and arrogant self-described socialist.

I could go on about how recent revelations inform us that certain "interrogation techniques" that were to have said didn't work (which was debunked almost as quickly as the allegations were made) did in fact extract valuable information as to the whereabouts of bin Laden. Bush put together the alliance of intelligence communities that worked diligently these past 10 years to get their man. Of course, the ultimate credit goes to Obama for allegedly making this the preeminent mission as his first term as president, if you believe that sentiment. Regardless, Team Obama got him and he deserves most of the credit. But there are other players in this game, namely the SEAL team members that carried out the mission, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates as well as the former president.

And I can go on and whine like a lefty about how there's much to do on the War on Terror and how there will be another leader of al Qeada and there's no actual end in sight as this is and always has been a generational battle, but the primary target has been acquired and terminated. So I have to say, as even Bush would admit, this is "Mission Accomplished."

Who to Watch For

In light of the death of Osama bin Laden (man, I'll never tire of saying those words) the world intelligence communities, especially those of the U.S. and Israel, there are bound to be on the look out for hopeful up and comers that will want to be and almost assuredly will, take over the number one spot as the world's most wanted terrorist. Now that bin Laden is a martyr in the extreme Islamic world (hopefully his 72 virgins all look like Helen Thomas) this is an almost guaranteed certainty.

Here you will find a listing of the top ten terrorist groups in the world. Not counting any groups based in Asia or most in Africa, will the next bin Laden come from one of these? You can bet the CIA, MI-5 and other Western intelligence organizations are already on top of it.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Osama bin Laden Dead!

It's been almost 10 years since the global-wide manhunt began for the world's most notorious and elusive terrorist. From the mountains of Afghanistan to Pakistan. This will most definitely make him a martyr in the hearts and minds of Jihadists everywhere, which could vamp up the attacks on Americans and American interests world-wide. If anyone thinks this is going to put and end to Islamist terror, think again. This won't "create new terrorists," but it will really piss off the ones that really want to hurt the west and especially the U.S.

But oh what a glorious day! This is going to be front page news for awhile. Kudos to the United States Special Forces, the Pentagon and President Obama. Not to make this political, but this may be just the thing to get him re-elected; if people can forget about the economy, unemployment and the deficit that is. But seriously, this is a major victory for President Obama.

Democrats' Hypocrisy on Race

Since this is a time when we should all be celebrating the death of the most vile, evil humannoid-type creature since Adolph Hitler, I dispense with the Obama-bashing for now. of course you know that little stay won't last long. Hey, that's how I roll.

But as for the Democrat Party as a whole, it seems that they're still, and for evermore, playing the race card because truly (excpet for the BIG deal of bin Laden's demise) they have nothing else. So it's time for yet another cleansing of the brain-washed minds that actually think the GOP is racist inside and out. I know this will do nothing for the indoctrinated that think the Dems are for the blacks and other minorities, but for those who would like the truth, here is another sermon of true history from the Sage from South Central, Larry Elder.

What do you mean, he's a liar? Did you know Mr. Elder is black? What are you, a racist?

By the way, I guess this article was meant to be a lesson in history, yet it started out as a useless and irellevent defense of Marilyn Davenport. I don't know what one has got to do with the other and why the history lesson was any kind of defense (other than showing how Dems have gotten away with racist comments and overtones for decades, if not the past 200 years and to show the double standard) I link it here solely to show you that in the annals of history, when it comes to party racism, the Democrats have the monopoly (almost).